Having worried a year ago whether anyone would hoist their banner against Gov. Jeb Bush next year, Florida Democrats now have almost too many volunteers on hand. Five well-qualified candidates have declared. That wouldn't be a problem if there were to be the traditional runoff primary next year. But without one -- thanks to some cunning moves by the Republicans who rule the Legislature -- the Democrats may nominate a candidate who commands only a third or even less of the vote, and who is scarred by desperation attacks in the final days of the winner-take-all primary. Bush, of course, will have been renominated by acclamation.

It bears noting that the Republicans set themselves that favorable stage under cover of a voting reform bill that simply had to pass. Even Huey Long would have blushed at the cynicism of it.

It is too late to try to return a separate runoff to next year's election schedule, but not too late for an instant runoff. With scarcely any additional time or expense, voters would have the opportunity to express their second choices at the same time they cast their first votes. The touch-screen voting machines that some counties are acquiring easily lend themselves to this process. With proper preparation, so can the optically scanned ballot systems that other counties will use.

This isn't rocket science. It's as simple as asking what other flavor you want if the ice cream shop is out of pistachio. The Legislature convenes early next year, in January. That allows plenty of time to do it.

One of the Democratic contenders, House Minority Leader Lois Frankel, has endorsed the instant runoff concept and has promised to have a bill introduced. The other candidates, particularly Janet Reno, need to support it as well. The party's nominee needs to be a consensus nominee; otherwise, the nomination will probably not be worth having. Faced with a united request from the candidates who would be most affected, the Republicans would have trouble finding a credible premise to refuse.

The instant runoff would also be a clear disincentive to negative campaigning. Saying bad things about another candidate is hardly the way to persuade his or her supporters to make you their second choice.

Utah Republicans did a large if unwitting favor for Florida Democrats last month. They used an instant runoff to elect new party officials at their state convention. The process differed only in scope from what Florida needs to nominate candidates next year. Voters in San Francisco will vote next year on a plan to replace their separate scheduled runoff with an instant version, and Alaska, which has no runoff, will vote on adopting the instant version for most general elections as well as primaries.

The truth is that the Florida Republicans need a runoff, instant or otherwise, nearly as much as the Democrats do. Three Republicans of greatly differing abilities are running for attorney general. A winner-take-all primary is to the advantage of the best-known but not necessarily the best-qualified. An instant runoff is the party's best insurance against embarrassment.

A technically successful instant runoff next year would also obviate the ensuing dispute about what to do with the election process in 2004 and beyond, when the new law presumes the return of the traditional second primary. There is no good reason -- only spiteful ones -- for not trying the instant runoff in 2002